This makes more sense than Horseshoe Theory, since I've yet to see someone go so far right that they wind up on the left.
this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2024
338 points (88.6% liked)
Flippanarchy
351 readers
49 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
The political spectrum is a 3D one. You've got left wing and right wing then you've got dictatorial and liberal, but the third dimension is the important one. The Z axis is intelligence. The right seem to move both to the right but also down into the realm of deeply stupid, after a while they hit the edge of the graph in the x-axis but the z-axis seems to extend infinitely into the stupid.
Saddest political compass ever.
"Hey, people with too much money and power tend to become anti-human psychopaths. We should probably re-arrange society to avoid this problem."
"Yeah, a dictatorship sounds like exactly the solution to that!"
All because Lenin betrayed the revolution, then wrote extensively about how betraying the revolution is actually good and how there needed to be a dictator to somehow make everyone equal.
And then he used famine as a weapon against the Ukrainian farmers, setting a precedent that Stalin would use just a decade later.
He mostly did that because he created a moneyless society that took everyone's money and resources in hopes of preventing anyone from hoarding anything... And then.... whoops we're having a civil war and we need other countries to back us in the fight and we can't pay them. Time to tax the people who we just told wouldn't need money anymore...
I think he could have pulled it off, but he moved too quickly. Absolute fucking clown show
I think he could have pulled it off, but he moved too quickly. Absolute fucking clown show
From everything I've read about him I don't think so. From the sounds of it he never really wanted socialism he just wanted to be a dictator and saw socialism as a way to get it.
I doubt he was ever going to follow through on the whole communism thing.
Because he started the civil war when he disbanded the National Assembly after it's first day. All because his party lost the election.
The simple history of 1917 Russia. WW1 is going poorly and in February the people rise up and force the Tsar to abdicate.
This is a major victory, but not a complete one. There's an interim government that isn't widely popular and a promised National Constituent Assembly to write a constitution.
Lenin then comes back from exile and starts table rousing. Saying that there doesn't need to be an assembly, that he should just be in charge so he can make the country communist.
Now, there was quite a bit of socialist frevor among the people, but the majority of people in the country side didn't exactly trust the Bolsheviks.
There's a whole dual power thing going on for most of the summer as the people form small councils to rule themselves while the interim government has mostly control over the military and such. Because they're paying.
In November Lenin launches his own revolution and casts down the interim government. But he still has to allow the promised National Assembly election even if he thinks it a waste of his time.
And his party loses badly to the rural socialists. So Lenin spends the next month complaining like the little bitch that he was, demanding that the assembly give up all power to Lenin's unelected jackboots.
And come January, the Assembly meets for the first and last time because Lenin is still butthurt for losing the election.
Lenin then went on to ban all other political parties.
This and other shit he pulled sparked the civil war, giving him the excuse to use famine as a weapon against Ukraine, which was not a happy part of the Soviet empire.
Tankies when they finally begin their new world order, but are asked to report to the mines because the qouta for poets was met before the jobs were even posted
load more comments
(2 replies)
The more one's political thinking is made up of slogans from pre-packaged ideologies, the less it is anchored in actual Principles.
Tankies, same as Fascists, don't really do the "what are my values" part in determining their own political posture and the "does this fit my values" part of judging a situation and instead just follow a "good people"/"bad people" "logic" were it's somebody else who tells them who are the "good people" and who are the "bad people", hence why it makes absolute sense for them to defend an agressor (in their view "good people") against a victim (either not "good people" or even "bad people").
Mind you, this is not just Tankies and Fascists: look for example at how the situation in Gaza is politically interpreted in Germany and what you find is almost always a "This are good people who can do no wrong hence we support those who claim to represent them even when mass murdering people for being of another etnicity" kind of "logic".
I would even go as far as saying that most of modern politics is anchored on such ultra-reductive pre-packaged ideologic takes separate from Principle: that "center" is a bit further up and closer to Tankies and Fascists, IMHO.
I would expand your point and say that even big parts of society don't really care about values but "good peopl/bad people". It isn't exclusive to politics.
The allies did no fighting at all? There was no lend lease?
You could draw a similar diagram in other contexts. Antivaxxers coming from the left-leaning hippy crowd and converging with the religious crowd on the right. Etc.
Yeah like Richard Dawkins pushing anti-trans conspiracy theories and platforming anti-science religous bigots.
Reading this breaks my heart. What anti trans conspiracy is he pushing?
This sucks so much. It was so disappointing, I looked up to this guy a lot. His books were the key part in my radicalisation pipeline but now I see him praising Musk and other stuff like this :(
Sam Harris straight up started a "Free Will isn't real, now come cherrypick Buddhism and blame Arabs for destroying Europe with me!" cult, and became best bros with Jordan Peterson.
Gargling any authoritarian's balls?
view more: next ›